Jump to content

vain68

Candidates
  • Posts

    103
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by vain68

  1. -Pilot -Blood Relatives -MNOC -A Room -Through a glass...
  2. Fourth, it is exactly this scene that heightened the episode's quality IMO. In saying that Catherine 'missed' what Watts was trying to say, we are again looking through this at an angle that Catherine couldn't possibly have known. Now, I do happen to agree with what seems to be your premise that Catherine should have known. That is, given Frank's line of work and his 'gift' for which the MM group recruited/accepted him, she should have been aware of the fact that oftentimes Frank would be 'out of touch' and how to handle that. Now, keep in mind that is asking a lot of her, and in an equal relationship, there needs to be give and take. It is interesting to watch SIII thus far and see more of the reality that Frank's gift, his committment to his work, often comes before even Jordan, although I get the sense that Frank wants to do well by her. But it is quite clear that the gift is first. If you take a look at any sports superstar, academic genius, or the like, I think one will see that one aspect of such brilliance is the need to stay 'out of touch.' I have mentioned this before, and there has been commentary in general about it in such magazines as GQ and the like (for example, in one GQ piece, Pete Sampras' downfall from Tennis brilliance was noted once he started his current relationship; keeping in mind downfall is relevant here). Also, cf. my discussion on Rilke, and why I think that a future episode based on his life would be fantastic................................... Continuing the discussion........... Vv
  3. Interesting Fourth, interesting. Although it separated him from the group, it pleased them. Somewhat of a juxtaposition and paradox there that we can further discuss.
  4. Now, did Luminary really separate Frank from the group? Recall, that at the end of the episode it was indeed a test, and that Catherine gave Frank the note that indicated this? If anything, perhaps this brought him closer to the group in some sense. As for Catherine's cluelessness. Two caveats are in order: 1) Jordan's ID of frank in the book may indeed be a reflection of her gift. We must recognize that we are looking--considering from Frank's vantage point. We must step back--outside of the box--and consider the perspective from a woman who, although involved in social work, most likely would indeed have trouble understanding a gift such as Frank's and his seeming inability to 'let go' when he came home. 2) I saw her ineptness at ID'ing him more indicative of her own struggle, perhaps anger, etc. that Frank was putting work ahead of her. Perhaps it blinded her momentarily, while with Jordan it did not. This point is related to #1, but yet somewhat a discrete proposition... Gentlemen and ladies, let's discuss
  5. I thought Luminary was excellent, particularly for its portrayal of Catherine trying to understand and make sense of Frank and their marriage. As far as the main thrust of Frank's journey up into Alaska, I thought it was solid, but again, I liked the secondary plot a bit more. I am not criticizing the brilliance of an episode like Somehow Satan or Jose Chung's (particularly the former one), it's just that is not what MM was about.
  6. IMO, In Arcadia Ego was a classic. I am not questioning the cinematography of the three I pointed out, but from a linear trajectory perspective, they do not fit at all with the possible exception of Somehow... I must say that both Jose Chung and 13 years made me quite noxius and I bet that they made Lance the same way. Vv
  7. Absolutely. 3 worst thus far all have a common theme: Trying to inject humor. Jose Chung Somehow Satan 13 years
  8. A brief commentary regarding Season III as I have watched the first couple episodes through "Skull and Bones." IMO, 13 years later falls into the same category of 'Jose Chung's' and 'Somehow Satan Got Behind Me.' When MM tries to throw a little 'comedy' in the mix is when it loses its potency. I did not like that episode at all, and thankfully it was followed up with Skull and Bones, which was well done. I think they made a huge wrong term making the MM group 'evil' but that is neither here nor there as Frank continues to carry the series with spectacular acting. In watching Skull and Bones, I could only imagine the fantastic episode that we would have had if Frank and Peter were allies. Vv
  9. Stranger, I do indeed agree with your assertion here. As I mentioned earlier, I see the brilliance of MM as creating two reverberating elements in that there is the linear or 'plot' meaning (as you suggest above)--call it the direct element--and the more broad and more probing idea of the human condition. This secondary yet for me more important element can be summed up by the quote I provided from the director of 21 grams that "we are all floating in an immense universe of circumstances, neither good nor bad..." In this sense, the future is dictated (and here evil too) by lawful (read not unlawful) yet seemingly random events. I speak of lawfulness from the idea of dynamical systems I presented in a separate thread. This idea is most aptly expressed by Watts in MNOC in which he speaks of possible futures existing like branches on a tree. Of course you have the direct element in re: the MM group, but you also have a much deeper, more profound reference to Waddington's epigentic principle and Bowlby's ideas of developmental pathways as shaping personality. I guess given my background it is no surprise that I see it this way aside from the direct componet. And this is what is so precious for me is that there is coherence at the psychological level to this series for the most part. The gravity of the show's tone is key in propogating this. Indeed, it was those episodes that diverted from this gravity that often agitated me. Interestingly, Klea Scott mentions in SIII 'making of' that she wished that would have done more of this (move away from the grave undertone)...I disagree strongly. Nonetheless, based on the first two episodes I have viewed, I do find her an excellent fit for Frank's partner. -VV
  10. Stranger, it wasn't necessarily the woman in Force Majeur but the man on life support who was the brain child behind the gig. Interestingly, have a look at the episode synopsis over at the Abyss. Summary: An unusual man prepares his bizarre family of cloned daughters for the great apocalyptic disaster of May 5th, 2000. While attempting to investigate a seemingly paranormal chain of events linked to these blonde-haired, blue-eyed girls, Frank Black and the Millennium Group find they have a thorn in the side in Dennis Hoffman, a man who is a self-proclaimed expert on the great planetary alignment that will cause the anticipated disaster. How eerie is this?
  11. Stranger, Of course the identity of the woman was never in question. I was just struck at the subliminal level at the likening to Lara. But a systematic review revealed that indeed it wasn't. What I had originally typed out and was set to post was something along these lines---and it is good to know (now) that CC did not write either episode. For me, there is a deeper symbolic level to what the producers/writers are trying to say than the overt plot, screenplay which must create linearity and a structural lattice in the series. For example, the beginning two episodes of SIII can be seen as a necessary bridge to satisfy the lay public regarding the Marburg virus et al. However, in redacting to 4th's query, I think the progressions that were associated with the old woman's "Now See" relfect the underlying idea of the 'human condition.' There were two basic ideologies as I seem them in MM. One was to tap the public's fear of the coming MM, the other a brand new look at evil in the context of serial killing and other incidents of violence--whatever their manifestation. The problem is that these two were slightly incompatible. CC taped a 'coming fear' vis a vis an extant condition (one that was gaining popularity at the time) in the form of serial killing and violent crime. M&W expanded this in the 2nd season more fully by taking a look at the nature of evil itself, rather than its form. They did this simultaneous by creating an outward screenplay that fit in with the idea that "the world was going to end." However, the last 1/4 of II and the beginning of III in my mind were a mistake in their transformation of the group into a 'demonic' entity simply for the fact that, in regards to the human condition---which seems to be an underlying structure to the whole series---you have relational disturbance, disagreement, and in-fighting. Now, back to the progressions with the old woman. When Frank engages in his soliloqy he states that we get "tantalizing" visions of the future but that they don't tell us what is going to happen, but rather that the future exists. This goes back to the quote in MNOC in which Watt's says "possible futures exist like branches on a tree...". In a sense, a future is dynamic and can take a multitude of pathways depending on a given perturbation or event. We see Jordan in these proressions in my mind as a reminder of the nature of the human condition. That is, the human condition will 'taint' her in some form, but whether it sets her on an adaptative or maladaptive course, one can not tell. Thus, Frank's commentary of we only know of THE future, but not A future. This 'theme' is reiterated again and again in all three seasons, and unfortunately, due to the necessity of having to provide an overt linearity to the series, it may have become shrouded. The same goes for the idea of a third faction etc. Interestingly, one of the sequences in the intro that remained for all three seasons was the woman collapsing inside the culvert---the loss of hope. That is a symbol of death, of mental acquiescence and ultimately, the utter implosion to the perturbations of the human condition.
  12. Damn, I had a reply to this (rather lengthy) all typed out and then something went down and I lost it. I see it relating to the Human Condition Fourth, I'll expand more perhaps this evening, but losing that really chapped me.
  13. Fourth, rest assured that I am ALWAYS lurking. However, as you personally know, my time is very systematic. At any rate, SIII is EXACTLY what I need as a way to shift didactism. Yes, it is possible your idea but the more I think about it, the more I think they only wanted to show his immediate family members in the progressions. That is, Catherine and Jordan and not Lara (btw, is it Laura or Lara--I think it is Lara if I am not mistaken--this is nitpicky, but I am curious nonetheless.) Now this might be the key difference between CC and M&W. I think, based on the script, that CC takes a very familial, traditional, conservative family aspect to religion, faith, and exogenous circumstance whereas Morgan and Wong were more liberal in their thinking and views regarding this. Does anyone know if CC is a Catholic?
  14. Aside from the linear bridge needed from SII to understand the virus that killed Catherine, this episode has some underlying philosophy which strikes me as quite intriguing. The idea of "Now See" and components of the future are all good fodder for discussion. Interestingly, when the old lady tells Frank "Now See" he goes through a series of visions (progressions) in which he sees Catherine et al. In the very first frames of this sequence, I thought I saw Lara, but in reality, here is who I saw when captured at the frame level. I find this intriguing (this 'thought I saw').
  15. Received it in the mail yesterday and watched "The Innocents" to kick it off last night, eschewing MNF and WWE (lol; I don't watch either definitively). I saw some symmetry between the Innocents and Force Majeur. Anyone else see this? Not to mention of course the linear progression from SII. A quick question for those who have seen the episode: at the end of the epi, after the Isuzu tumbles off the bridge, it shows the car (that caused the accident; a Pontiac Grand AM). Then it shows the car driving off. I didn't see Frank nor Emma "run after it" as it states on the Millennial Abyss episode discussion page. Any idea for this discrepancy? Perhaps I have lost my mind? In fact, I never even saw "men" per se, as all I saw was the car. No one ever got out? Vv
  16. I have been re-examing SI episodes in the context of SII discussion as well as a bridge to SIII. Certain things have struck me about the episodes that did not the first time. I have reviewed "The Thin White Line" and "Blood Relatives." In particular, Blood relatives reaffirmed some very important things for me. At any rate, it should not be long now for SIII. I already have a place on the bookshelf set aside for it.
  17. Fourth, you know I am always there lurking in the mist; as for your second choice, I concur wholeheartedly. Catherine may trump them both however in a sophistocated, elegant way. Vv.
  18. This has to be the greatest TV series ever; and I say this not from a subjective standpoint, but an objective one as well........The acting was brilliant, casting was superb. Even for the episodes that appeared to be anomalies, you judge a series based on holisitc level. I am looking extremely forward to season III. Vv
  19. The answer to the question is a resounding YES; for more info on the true nature of the psychopath, and the breakdown between Factor I and Factor II components, please review both Cleckley and Hare's publications in that order. The emotional component is much more indicative of the nature of the psychopath than is the antisocial component.
  20. Ethsnafu, It was intriguing to note quite a few dynamical systems terms in your post; I think your depiction of SII is quite alligned with my dynamical presentation earlier. You mention at least once such concepts as "chaos," "emergent," "dualism," and "volatile" (which appears to be a remark on instability of systems). Let us further examine: Here you refer to "destruction of balance" which in, dynamical terms would simply be the perturbation to an 'attractor state.' Here we see you building to the concepts of both emergent function and non-linearity. In speaking of non-linearity in dynamical conceptualizations, what is tacitly acknowledged is that the sum of the parts does not necessarily equal the whole. That is, the whole--the emergent--is usually greater than the sum of its parts. It is non-linear. Further, in order for emergence (transcendence), there must be a triggering perturbation to allow for chaos and resultant self-organization. The 'babe of the abyss' hints at vainglorious arisings and an esteemed position in terms of omnipotence. This would suggest an emergent 'babe' as greater in functionality than what originally 'dove into the abyss.' Here we see you directly tie in your contributions to a dynamic framework. Here we again see a direct link with the notion of 'emergent function' in your notion of malign reemergence. Compare this with the following offering from the director or 21 grams which I have referenced earlier... Finally, in consideration of Frank and Catherine's stressed relationship, and Frank's need for 'isolation' in order to optimize his 'gift' I offer the following quote from Rilke, which, no matter its inherent biases and selfishness, resonates with fundamental truths which need to be examined more clearly in our conceptualizations of Frank and Catherine's relationship, and also Lara's injection, albeit briefly, into SII. Vain
×
×
  • Create New...